Google headquarters
OAKLAND — A federal judge has slashed the fees sought by attorneys in a privacy class action settlement with Google by more than 83%, ruling the real world benefits of the settlement don't live up to the plaintiffs' lawyers' hype and aren't worth anywhere close to the $128 million they requested for their work on the case.
On March 26, U.S. District Judge Yvette Gonzalez Rogers awarded attorney fees of $21.9 million, plus $3.5 million in costs, to a group of attorneys and law firms.
The award came as part of the judge's final approval of a settlement ending class action litigation against Google over alleged user privacy violations.
Attorneys involved in the consolidated class action included attorney Elizabeth C. Pritzker, and others with the firm of Pritzker Levine LLP, of Emeryville; and attorneys with the firms of Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, of Oakland; Simmons Hanly Conroy, of New York; DiCello Levitt LLP, of New York and Chicago; Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy, of Burlingame; and Bottini & Bottini, of La Jolla.
The settlement came about as the results of lawsuits filed by those firms beginning in 2021 on behalf of potentially millions of Google users whose data and information was allegedly sold without their consent.
The lawsuits particularly centered on Google's so-called "Real-Time Bidding" (RTB) system. Under that system, the lawsuit asserted Google was allegedly selling its account holders information billions of times each day to thousands of RTB participating advertisers.
The lawsuit asserts Google's alleged practices allegedly violated federal and California state privacy laws.
Proceedings in the case continued for four-and-a-half years, before ultimately resulting in a settlement presented to Judge Gonzalez Rogers for approval in September 2025.
Under the deal, Google agreed to an injunction requiring it to install a feature Google account holders can choose to use to limit the ability of Google to sell data and information under the RTB system.
Google notably did not agree to pay any significant sums to the class.
They agreed to pay modest "service awards" of $15,000 each to named plaintiffs in the lawsuits. And they agreed to pay attorney fees to the plaintiff' lawyers, as ordered by the court.
Google, however, objected when plaintiffs' attorneys submitted a request for more than $128 million in fees.
In that motion filed Oct. 1, 2025, the plaintiffs' lawyers touted the settlement as "trailblazing" and one that would "fundamentally (transform) digital advertising." They claimed the settlement would put "hundreds of millions of active U.S. Google account holders ... in control of their privacy."
While acknowledging the settlement did not include any direct payment from Google to allegedly violated account holders, the lawyers said their $128 million fee request was still justified, because they claimed it would result in an estimated "economic value" of $1.4 billion.
The figure was purportedly based on an analysis by Professor Robert Zeithammer, of the UCLA Anderson School of Management, who calculated a benefit of $36 per user, multiplied against a number of Google users who may choose to activate the RTB blocking feature required under the settlement.
So, they said, the $128 million fee request amounted to a reasonable percentage of the settlement's "economic value."
In her ruling, Gonzalez Rogers was skeptical of the plaintiffs' lawyers' claims and arguments.
She particularly noted the "economic value" estimate was built on little more than speculation.
She noted that during a hearing on the attorney fees, the judge offered to let the attorneys wait and file an amended fee request based on the number of Google users who actually choose to activate the anti-RTB feature.
The judge noted the plaintiffs' lawyers "declined."
So, Judge Gonzalez Rogers said she could not accept the lawyers' claims based on the settlement's estimated "economic value."
The judge further agreed with Google that the plaintiffs' lawyers had exaggerated the amount of work they performed on the case, noting a large percentage of their estimated billing hours were the result of their own "excessive" appeals and discovery motions.
The judge further said she believed the plaintiffs' lawyers made much too much of the alleged benefits of their settlement.
She noted independent published reports examining the settlement were far more restrained.
"Indeed, much of the coverage questions the degree to which this injunctive relief will impact Google, given that the RTB control is an opt-in," she said.
So, she found "the settlement is adequate, but by no means excellent."
The judge then calculated the attorney fees to actually be worth about $21.9 million, or about 17% of the plaintiffs' lawyers' requested pay.
Google has been represented in the action by attorney Whitty Somvichian, and others from the firm of Cooley LLP, of San Francisco and New York.
